Summary
The applicant, a 30-year-old Information Specialist with a history of financial difficulties, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). While the applicant mitigated concerns related to personal conduct, he failed to address significant financial issues, including over $69,900 in delinquent debts and multiple unpaid judgments, leading to a denial of his security clearance.
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant failed to list on his SCA a lien placed against him for unpaid taxes (2.a). Applicant failed to list on his SCA judgments that had been filed against him (2.b). Applicant has five judgments against him (SOR ¶¶ 1.a for $400 was a civil dispute) (1.a). Applicant has five judgments against him (SOR ¶ 1.b for $4,489) (1.b). Applicant has five judgments against him (SOR ¶ 1.c for $10,201) (1.c). Applicant has five judgments against him (SOR ¶ 1.d for $15,000) (1.d). Applicant has five judgments against him (SOR ¶ 1.e for $3,100 is a rental agreement dispute) (1.e). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.f ($1,318) is a credit card debt on which Applicant defaulted in 2005 (1.f). Applicant believes the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g ($4,265) is the same debt as the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.e ($3,100) (1.g). Applicant is unfamiliar with the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h ($2,303) (1.h). Applicant is unfamiliar with the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($426) (1.i). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.j ($1,705) is likely a credit card debt (1.j). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.k ($17,000) is a car loan (1.k). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.l ($1,887) is for purchases from an electronics store (1.l). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.m is a tax lien ($5,936) that was filed in August 2006 (1.m). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.n ($240) is an electric bill (1.n). Applicant denies the debt in SOR ¶ 1.o. ($1,495) owed to a cell phone company (1.o). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.p ($226) is owed to a car insurance company (1.p).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.19.a, F.19.b, F.19.c. The judge applied mitigating conditions F.20.b. The decision turned on the following: The applicant has accumulated over $69,900 in delinquent debts without any repayment plan; He has five unpaid judgments against him, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations; The applicant did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior or a willingness to resolve his debts.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant has accumulated over $69,900 in delinquent debts without any repayment plan.
- He has five unpaid judgments against him, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations.
- The applicant did not demonstrate responsible financial behavior or a willingness to resolve his debts.
Conditions Referenced
- F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
- F.19.braisedIndebtedness Caused by Frivolous or Irresponsible Spending
- F.19.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
- F.20.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's father's death and child support obligations were considered but did not fully mitigate the financial issues.
Key Rule Quoted
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedMay 21, 2009
- Answer filedJun 18, 2009
- Hearing heldSep 29, 2009
- Decision date—
Cite For
- Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
- Impact of Unpaid Judgments on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E